Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hierarchy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 17 November 2007 (→Changes log: Add change). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Changes log

(RV is short for Release Versions, and GA is short for Good Articles)

  1. Move RV "Theatre, film and television" from "Language and literature" to "Arts"
  2. Move RV "Geology, geophysics and minerology" from "Geography" to "Natural science"
  3. Rename "Geography" as "Geography and places", and split RV into "Geography" and "Places"
  4. Rename "History" as "History and warfare"
  5. Rename "Chemistry" as "Chemistry and materials science"
  6. Rename "Architecture" as "Architecture and architects"
  7. Move GA "Film" from "Social sciences and society" to "Arts"
  8. Move GA "Agriculture etc." from "Natural sciences" to "Everyday life"
  9. Split GA "Geography" into "Geography" and "Places"
  10. Update GA "Astronomy and physics" list

Last change: Geometry guy 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of changes and other issues

Listing "Theatre, film and television" under "Arts" (1 and 7)

Listing "Geology, geophysics and minerology" under "Natural science" (2)

  • Neutral Walkerma 05:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, but in my view Geology/geophysics and Meteorology/atmospheric science should be listed together, either under a broadly based "Natural science" section, or under a broadly based "Geography and geosciences" section. At GA, they are currently listed under "Natural science", so this choice requires less work. However, the range of articles listed here suggests that the geography and geosciences approach may be more natural. Geometry guy 13:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting "Geography" into "Geography" and "Places" subtopics (3 and 9)

How would this work at WR? Geography without places would be a very small section. Do you mean "Geography and Places" at the top level and then have "Geography" and "Places" as subtopics of that? Walkerma 05:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I mean, and have clarified this The geography subtopic would be relatively small, but that is partly why I think it is a good idea to separate it, so that the geography doesn't get lost among the long lists of places. Geometry guy 13:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of history section: "History and warfare"? (4)

At Wikipedia:Version_0.5#History, the title is "History and war". A third alternative would be "History and conflict". The case for a name like this is: (a) this seems to be the best place to put all the articles on military history and tactics; (b) the name of the topic should reflect the content; (c) it is awkward to have a subtopic with the same name as the name of the topic. It is a sad observation, though, that much of human history is about conflict! Geometry guy 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the chemistry subtopic "Chemistry and materials science" (5)

Should "Architecture" be renamed as "Architecture and architects"? (6)

  • Oppose: I think it's implied. We don't have "Arts and Artists" and "Science and Scientists"; it should be understood that you'll find an architect listed under his/her profession.
I agree with the principle, but this issue here is that currently the entries in this section include "Architecture", "Art" and "Artists", so it is unclear whether architects should be listed with "Architecture" or with "Artists". Indeed at WP:GA#Arts, the architects are listed with the artists. Possible alternatives include: merging "Artists" into "Art"; adding a separate entry for "Architects". Geometry guy 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maybe I was too hasty - I see what you mean now. The GA organisation there seems odd, and I suspect it's probably historical. The next release version will have (we hope) around 30,000 articles once the bot gets going, and so we will almost certainly need to have separate subsections for buildings, for architectural terms and for architects (Consider that a section with 30 articles now might have 400 after the bot is finished- so we'll have to split a lot). We'll probably have lots of subsections of artists, too. Walkerma 02:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing "Agriculture etc." under "Everyday life" (8)

Many thanks for joining in! I was worried this was going to be a two person discussion!
The problem is that "agriculture and aquaculture" includes things such as forestry, horticulture and pearl farming, which don't have anything to do with food. At the moment the only GAs are Agricultural extension and Christmas tree cultivation, so I expect the creation of this subtopic is a historical accident which can be fixed. But we need a convincingly good fix! Geometry guy 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it might be advisable to put all primary economic activities into one category, as a level 2 section of Everyday life. Having only agriculture there seems a bit off. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice idea, but raises the question whether this stuff is better placed with business and economics under "Social sciences and society". These decisions are not easy, so my view is we should look for stable solutions rather than ideal ones. Geometry guy 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. It gets complicated from there... because you could have an article about corn under food, but since it also is an economically important crop, it would be under "Agriculture et al" under Econ in Social Sciences. But an article about an apple would probably fit better under "Food and drink". I dunno. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Hierarchy&oldid=172091507"